Fukushima: What are the concerns over waste water release?

By Tessa Wong, Asia Digital Reporter, BBC News, 23 Aug 23,

Japan’s controversial plan to release treated waste water from the Fukushima nuclear plant into the Pacific Ocean has sparked anxiety and anger at home and abroad.

Since the 2011 tsunami which severely damaged the plant, more than a million tonnes of treated waste water has accumulated there. Japan has said it will start discharging it from 24 August.

Despite an endorsement from the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the plan has been deeply controversial in Japan with local communities expressing concerns about contamination.

Fishing industry groups in Japan and the wider region are also worried about their livelihoods, as they fear consumers will avoid buying seafood.

China has accused Japan of treating the ocean as its “private sewer”, and criticised the IAEA of being “one-sided”. While South Korea’s government has said it has no objections to the plan, many of its citizens are opposed to it.

So what is Japan’s plan and how exactly has it churned the waters?

What is Japan doing with the nuclear waste water?

Since the disaster, power plant company Tepco has been pumping in water to cool down the Fukushima nuclear reactors’ fuel rods. This means every day the plant produces contaminated water, which is stored in massive tanks.

More than 1,000 tanks have been filled, and Japan says that it needs the land occupied by the tanks to build new facilities to safely decommission the plant. It has also pointed out concerns that the tanks could collapse in a natural disaster.

Releasing treated waste water into the ocean is a routine practice for nuclear plants – though critics have pointed out that the amount from Fukushima is on an unprecedented, far vaster scale.

Tepco filters the Fukushima water through its Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS), which reduces most radioactive substances to acceptable safety standards, apart from tritium and carbon-14…………………………………………….

What do critics say?

Despite years of government assurances, the plan remains deeply controversial to the Japanese public. Only 53% said they support it, while 41% said they did not, in a survey conducted in August by the newspaper Asahi Shimbun.

UN-appointed human rights experts have opposed the plan, as have environmental activists. Greenpeace has released reports casting doubt on Tepco’s treatment process, alleging it does not go far enough in removing radioactive substances.

Critics say Japan should, for the time being, keep the treated water in the tanks. They argue this buys time to develop new processing technologies, and allow any remaining radioactivity to naturally reduce.

There are also some scientists who are uncomfortable with the plan. They say it requires more studies on how it would affect the ocean bed and marine life.

“We’ve seen an inadequate radiological, ecological impact assessment that makes us very concerned that Japan would not only be unable to detect what’s getting into the water, sediment and organisms, but if it does, there is no recourse to remove it… there’s no way to get the genie back in the bottle,” marine biologist Robert Richmond, a professor with the University of Hawaii, told the BBC’s Newsday programme.

Tatsujiro Suzuki, a nuclear engineering professor from Nagasaki University’s Research Center for Nuclear Weapons Abolition, told the BBC the plan would “not necessarily lead to serious pollution or readily harm the public – if everything goes well”.

But given that Tepco failed to prevent the 2011 disaster, he remains concerned about a potential accidental release of contaminated water, he said.

What have Japan’s neighbours said?

China has been the most vocal, accusing Japan of violating “international moral and legal obligations” and “putting its selfish interests above the long-term wellbeing of the entire humanity”.

It has also warned that Tokyo “must bear all consequences”, and has already banned seafood from Fukushima and surrounding prefectures…………….

n contrast to China, Seoul – which has been keen to build ties with Japan – has soft-pedalled its concerns. It says it “respects” the IAEA’s findings and has endorsed the plan.

But this approach has angered the South Korean public, 80% of whom are worried about the water release according to a recent poll.

“The government enforces a strong no-littering policy at sea… But now the government is not saying a word (to Japan) about the wastewater flowing into the ocean,” Park Hee-jun, a South Korean fisherman told BBC Korean………….

Thousands have attended protests in Seoul calling for government action, as some shoppers fearing food supply disruptions have stockpiled salt and other necessities.

In response, South Korea’s parliament passed a resolution in late June opposing the water release plan – though it is unclear what impact this would have on Japan’s decision. Officials are also launching “intense inspections” of seafood, and are sticking to an existing ban of Japanese seafood imports from regions around the Fukushima plant……………………………

the biggest vindication may lie with the IAEA report, released by the agency’s chief Rafael Grossi while visiting Japan in July.

The report, which came after a two year investigation, found that Tepco and Japanese authorities were meeting international safety standards on several aspects including facilities, inspections and enforcement, environmental monitoring, and radioactivity assessments.

Mr Grossi said the plan would have a “negligible radiological impact on people and the environment”.

Yet, Japan’s decision to start discharging the Fukushima water has set the stage for an intensified showdown with its critics.

Additional reporting by Yuna Ku and Chika Nakayama.  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-66106162

August 25, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

France heatwave curbs cooling water supply to St Alban nuclear plant

PARIS, Aug 23 (Reuters) – A heatwave curbing the availability of cooling water has prompted a production warning from operator EDF for the Saint Alban nuclear power plant on the Rhone river in eastern France for Aug. 26-27.

Similar warnings have been issued this summer at plants including those at Bugey and Tricastin, which are also on the Rhone……………………….more https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/france-heatwave-curbs-cooling-water-supply-st-alban-nuclear-plant-2023-08-23/

August 25, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

French Winter Power Twice as Pricey as Germany’s on Nuclear Woes

By Todd Gillespie, April 19, 2023  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-19/french-winter-power-twice-as-pricey-as-germany-s-on-nuclear-woes?leadSource=uverify%20wall#xj4y7vzkg

France’s weakened nuclear power output means the cost of its electricity for next winter is more than twice as expensive as Germany’s, as concerns over the health of the country’s reactors persist.

The “massive” gap of nearly €250 ($273) per megawatt-hour between French and German prices is because traders are pricing in more risk as they await updates on Electricite de France SA’s struggles with its aging atomic fleet, according to analysts at Engie SA’s EnergyScan. “No participants want to risk being short next winter,” they wrote.

French power for the first quarter of 2024 is trading at €416 per megawatt-hour, more than double Germany’s rate of €169. Normally a power exporter, France’s atomic generation has been gradually returning to service but still remains below historical averages.

The price discrepancy is a sign of France’s lingering energy woes even as its European neighbors benefit from a prolonged drop in prices. EDF’s nuclear reactors have faced recurring corrosion issues as the government takes greater hold over the state-backed utility.

France, which relies on nuclear energy for most of its electricity, is expected to remain heavily dependent on power imports during the winter months to meet its demand. Meanwhile, Germany closed its last nuclear plants Saturday after years of political tension over phasing out the technology, but is still very reliant on polluting coal-fired power.

French nuclear availability was at 62% on Wednesday, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Nuclear output on Wednesday was above its level for this time last year after weeks of historic lows.

— With assistance by Josefine Fokuhl and Francois De Beaupuy

August 24, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Fukushima nuclear plant will start releasing treated wastewater. Here’s what you need to know.

The Canadian Press, Mari Yamaguchi, The Associated Press 23 Aug 23,

TOKYO (AP) — Japanese officials plan to start discharging treated radioactive wastewater from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean on Thursday, a contentious step more than 12 years after a massive earthquake and tsunami set off a battle against ever-increasing amounts of radioactive water at the plant.

The government and plant operator say the release is an unavoidable part of its decommissioning and will be safely carried out, but the plan faces opposition in and outside Japan. Here is a look at the controversy.

WHY IS THERE SO MUCH WASTEWATER?

The March 2011 earthquake and tsunami destroyed the plant’s cooling systems, causing three reactors to melt. Highly contaminated cooling water applied to the damaged reactors has leaked continuously to building basements and mixed with groundwater.

The plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings (TEPCO), has taken steps to limit the amount of groundwater and rainwater entering the reactor area, and has reduced the increase in contaminated water to about 100 tons a day, 1/5 of the initial amount. The water is collected and partly recycled as cooling water after treatment, with the rest stored in around 1,000 tanks, which are already filled to 98% of their 1.37 million-ton capacity.

WHY IS TEPCO RELEASING THE WATER NOW?

The government and TEPCO say they need to make room for the plant’s decommissioning and prevent accidental leaks from the tanks.

Japan has obtained support from the International Atomic Energy Agency to improve the transparency and credibility of the release and ensure it meets international safety standards. The government has also stepped up a campaign promoting the plan’s safety at home and through diplomatic channels.

WHAT’S IN THE TREATED WATER’?

The water is being treated by what’s called an Advanced Liquid Processing System, which can reduce the amounts of more than 60 selected radionuclides to government-set releasable levels, except for tritium, which officials say is safe for humans if consumed in small amounts.

About 70% of the water held in the tanks still contains cesium, strontium, carbon-14 and other radionuclides exceeding government-set levels. It will be retreated until the concentrations meet those limits, then diluted by more than 100 times its volume of seawater before it is released. That will bring it way below international safety limits, but its radioactivity won’t be zero.

HOW SAFE IS IT?

IAEA concluded in a report that the plan, if conducted as designed, will have negligible impact on the environment and human health. IAEA chief Rafael Grossi visited the plant and said he was satisfied with preparations.

Japan’s government says the release of tritium into the sea is a routine practice by nuclear plants around the world and that the amount will be several times lower than from plants in China and South Korea.

Scientists generally support the IAEA’s conclusion, while some call for more attention to dozens of low-dose radionuclides that remain in the water, saying data on their long-term effects on the environment and marine life are insufficient.

HOW WILL IT BE RELEASED?

TEPCO executive Junichi Matsumoto says the release will begin with the least radioactive water to ensure safety. After samples are analyzed in final testing, the water will be transported through a thin black pipe to a coastal area where it will be diluted with hundreds of times its volume of seawater.

The diluted water will enter an undersea tunnel and be released a few minutes later from a point 1 kilometer (0.6 mile) off the coast. The release will be gradual and will continue for decades until the decommissioning of the plant is finished, TEPCO officials say. Matsumoto said the slow release will further reduce the environmental impact.

Final preparation for the release began Tuesday when just 1 ton of water was sent for dilution with 1,200 tons of seawater, and the mixture was to be kept in the primary pool for two days for final sampling to ensure safety, Matsumoto said. A batch of 460 tons will be sent to the mixing pool Thursday for the actual discharge.

The company plans to release 31,200 tons of treated water by the end of March 2024, which would empty only 10 tanks because of the continued production of wastewater at the plant. The pace will later pick up.

WHY ARE PEOPLE WORRIED?

Fukushima’s badly hit fisheries, tourism and economy are still recovering from the disaster. Fisheries groups worry about a further damage to the reputation of their seafood. Fukushima’s current catch is only about one-fifth its pre-disaster level due to a decline in the fishing population and smaller catch sizes.

The head of the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives, Masanobu Sakamoto, said on Monday that “scientific safety and the sense of safety are different.”

Groups in South Korea and China have also raised concerns, turning the release into a political and diplomatic issue. China has stepped up radiation testing of fishery and agricultural products from Fukushima and nine other prefectures, halting exports at customs for weeks, Fisheries Agency officials say.

WHAT IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG?

The Japanese government says potential risks from the release of treated water are limited to reputational damage resulting from rumors, rather than scientific study. It has allocated 80 billion yen ($550 million) to support fisheries and seafood processing and combat potential reputation damage. TEPCO has also promised to deal with reputational damage claims.

August 24, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The ageing nuclear reactors. How to keep them going for decades, (best to forget coming climate extremes)

plant-specific climate simulations do not exist for lower river levels, increased wildfires, or extreme weather events like tornadoes and heavy wind and rain.

Then there’s the issue of what to do with radioactive spent fuel.

Europe’s atomic reactors are getting old. Can they bridge the gap to an emissions-free future?

Reuters, By America Hernandez, Forrest Crellin, Prasanta Kumar Dutta, Anurag Rao and Aditi Bhandari, Aug. 22, 2023

Shaken by the loss of Russian natural gas since the invasion of Ukraine, European countries are questioning whether they can extend the lives of their ageing nuclear reactors to maintain the supply of affordable, carbon-free electricity — but national regulators, companies and governments disagree on how long the atomic plants can be safely kept running………………………………………………

Taken together, the UK and EU have 109 nuclear reactors running, most of which were built in the 1970s and 1980s and were commissioned to last about 30 years.

That means 95 of those reactors — nearly 90% of the fleet — have passed or are nearing the end of their original lifespan, igniting debates over how long they can safely continue to be granted operating extensions.

Extension talk: Bridging the gap or a new lease of life?

Regulations differ across borders, but life extension discussions are usually a once-a-decade affair involving physical inspections, cost/benefit estimates for replacing major worn-out parts, legislative amendments, and approval from the national nuclear safety authority.

In some countries — especially for those that planned to exit atomic power entirely after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan — discussion is focused on the short term: eking out a few years to get through any shortages before new wind, solar and gas installations can be built to take over.

Anti-nuclear Germany had planned to switch off its last three plants by the end of 2022, only to grant the sites an emergency extension to April 2023 to make it through winter without Russian gas — which previously made up 40% of EU gas supply……………………………………….

So far, Finland, Sweden, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, the Netherlands and Hungary have all taken steps to allow reactors to run for at least 60 years, subject to regular safety checks.

France, with the largest fleet, is carrying out a major 40-year inspection and refurbishment programme for its 32 oldest reactors.

ASN, the national safety authority, has said France’s pressurised water reactor (PWR) design in principle can be safely operated for 50 years — meaning the ageing plants can run through 2030 — but the regulator will not take a stance on extending to 60 years until the end of 2026……………………………………..

Some companies are pushing the limits further.

In February, Finland’s Fortum obtained permission to operate two reactors until 2050, when they will reach 70 years of age.

In Sweden, where licences are unlimited in time subject to regular safety checks, Vattenfall is considering 80 years of operation for its five reactors……………… More than scientific one-upmanship is at play.

…………………. The cost of pulling the plug

Politicians are also under pressure to keep energy prices low, especially as movements characterising climate action as costly and elitist gain ground.

That means ensuring steady, abundant supply — any swift, unexpected loss of a major source means market spikes and painful household bills.

Energy prices in Europe jumped exponentially in 2022 after many French reactors went offline. The impact was compounded by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

…………………………………..The biggest challenge is maintaining the reactor vessel, where uranium atoms are split to release neutrons inside the core. Those flying neutrons also hit the vessel’s steel walls, altering the lattice structure of the metal, making it hard and brittle.

Vattenfall and EDF try to slow down that embrittlement process by layering in special rods of hafnium metal or all……………………………….

Reactor vessels are generally seen as non-replaceable — though it has never been tried.

The same goes for the airtight containment building, which houses the reactor and all associated radiation-emitting parts, to keep it from being released into the atmosphere.

………………………… The French government, which this year nationalised EDF, has estimated it needs to hire and train at least 100,000 workers by 2033 if it hopes to run its fleet long term and build at least six new reactors.

That includes automation engineers, boilermakers, draughtsmen, electricians, maintenance technicians, blacksmiths, pipe fitters and welders.

​​Europe’s new pro-nuclear alliance would require some 450,000 skilled workers if it hopes to build an additional 50 GW of new nuclear by 2050, according to industry lobby Nucleareurope.

2050 and beyond: Hotter, drier, more radioactive trash

Industry cheerleaders point to Dubai’s new Barakah nuclear plant as proof reactors can be successfully designed to withstand desert heat and warmer water temperatures.

But few plants have room to be retrofitted with new safety systems, such as a dyke wall to protect against rising water levels, regulators warn.

“It’s a real headache to find [physical] space on a site that’s currently operating — we have reached certain limits in the feasible modifications of existing reactors,” said Karine Herviou, deputy director-general of France’s Institute for Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety, at the industry event on lifetime extensions.

The French fleet’s temperature margin to withstand heatwaves is constantly questioned, she added, while plant-specific climate simulations do not exist for lower river levels, increased wildfires, or extreme weather events like tornadoes and heavy wind and rain.

As a result, Herviou said in France: “There’s a general agreement that what we’ll do at the 50-year, 60-year mark will essentially be replacements for modernisation but very certainly not adding in any new safety systems … and checking for conformity and respect of already-applicable requirements, without further hiking the safety requirements.”

That rings alarm bells for third-party watchdogs like Mycle Schneider, who compiles the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report and said ageing reactors need tighter scrutiny.

“You have a car, 30-to-40 years old, and your generator breaks down. You open the hood, the mechanic takes out the generator and then says, ‘Ooh, everything underneath is rotten’ — a 40-year-old nuclear plant is not all that different, you basically find on the go all kinds of things you didn’t expect to find,” Schneider said.

EDF wants the government to relax biodiversity rules which forbid plants from dumping used cooling water into nearby rivers on days they are deemed already too warm, limiting power production — which risks becoming more frequent.

Then there’s the issue of what to do with radioactive spent fuel.

Used uranium pellets, which are solid, are stored in special refrigerated swimming pools designed to cool the radioactive heat down for five-to-10 years. French company Orano then separates out the material into non-recyclable leftovers that are vitrified into glass (4% of the material), plutonium (1%) to create a new nuclear fuel called Mox, on which some 40% of France’s reactors can run; and reprocessed uranium (95%) which for now can only be re-enriched and “recycled” at one plant in Russia.

Non-recyclable waste can be safely stored in dry casks, but its ultimate destination is deep underground, where it will fully degrade over hundreds of thousands of years.

Sweden, Finland and France have plans to build such long-term underground sites………………………………………………………………………………  https://www.reuters.com/graphics/EUROPE-ENERGY/NUCLEARPOWER/gdvzwweqkpw/

August 24, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Global Campaign Against Ocean Dumping of Nuclear Wastewater Worldwide Urgent Actions against Japan’s ocean dumping of nuclear wastewater on Aug 24th.

1. The USA

• Los Angeles, Aug 23rd, 12 – 1 PM @ Japanese Consulate
• New York, Aug 23rd, 12 – 1 PM @ Japanese Consulate  (E 49th St & Park Ave.)
• Washington DC, Aug 25th, 11am @ Japanese Embassy
• Seattle, Washington, Aug 26th, 2pm @ Seattle Downtown  ‘West Lake Park’

Organized by Global Candlelight Action

2. UK

• North Wales, Aug 25th, 5pm @ Bangor pier

Organized by PAWB ( People Against Wylfa B) and CADNO

3. Germany

• Berlin, Aug25th, 5 pm @ Brandenburg Gate
• Frankfurt, Aug 26th, 3 pm @ Rathenauplatz (Goetheplatz)
• Hamburk, September 9th

Organized by Global Candlelight Action

4. Fiji

• Suva, Aug 25th, 10am @ Japanese Embassy

Organized by PANG, Alliance for Future Generations, Pacific Conference of Churches; FWRM, DIVA for Equality and others joining the March including the largest Indigenous women’s network. 

5. Japan

• Tokyo, Aug 22nd @ Japanese PM house
• Tokyo, Aug 23rd @ TEPCO
• Fukushima Iwaki, Aug 27th 

Organized by Japanese CSOs alliances

6. Switzerland

• Zurich, September 16th

Organized by Global Candlelight Action

7. Canada

• Civil Zoom rally, on August 24, 5 pm

Organized by  civil society in Canada

8. Australia

• Melbourne, Aug 26th (Sat), 5 pm @ Korea Society of Victoria

Organized by Global Candlelight Action

9. Korea

• Seoul, Aug 23rd, 7pm @ Japanese Embassy
• Seoul, Aug 24th, 7pm @ Japanese Embassy
• Seoul, Aug 26th, 6pm @ Korea Press Center
• 17 local cities nationwide in Korea hold a press conference and rallies from Aug 22nd~31st

Organized by Korean civil society alliances / Korean Peoples’ Action to Stop Dumping of Fukushima Daiichi Radioactive Water(KPA-SDFDRW)

August 24, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Fukushima: wastewater from ruined nuclear plant to be released from Thursday, Japan says

Release plans approved by UN nuclear authority have caused outcry in China and concern for the reputation of Japan’s seafood

Guardian Justin McCurry in Tokyo 22 Aug 23

Japan is to begin releasing wastewater from the wrecked Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant from Thursday, in defiance of opposition from fishing communities, China and some scientists.

The prime minister, Fumio Kishida, has said that disposing of more than 1m tonnes of water being stored at the site is an essential part of the long and complex process to decommission the plant.

But the plan, announced by Kishida on Tuesday, has caused controversy because the water contains tritium, a radioactive substance that can’t be removed by the facility’s water filtration technology.

The decision comes weeks after the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), approved the discharge, saying that the radiological impact on people and the environment would be “negligible”.

South Korea and China banned seafood imports from some areas of Japan after Fukushima Daiichi suffered a triple meltdown in the March 2011 triple disaster along the country’s north-east coast.

The South Korean government recently dropped its objections to the discharge, but opposition parties and many South Koreans are concerned about the impact the discharge will have on food safety. China remains strongly opposed, while Hong Kong, an important market for Japanese seafood exports, has also threatened restrictions.

Some experts point out that nuclear plants around the world use a similar process to dispose of wastewater containing low-level concentrations of tritium and other radionuclides.

“Tritium has been released [by nuclear power plants] for decades with no evidential detrimental environmental or health effects,” said Tony Hooker, a nuclear expert from the University of Adelaide.

Greenpeace, however, has described the filtration process as flawed, and warned that an “immense” quantity of radioactive material will be dispersed into the sea over the coming decades.

The government and the plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), also face opposition from local fishers, who say pumping water into the Pacific Ocean will destroy their industry.

In a meeting on Monday with Masanobu Sakamoto, the head of the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperative Associations, Kishida attempted to reassure fishing communities that the discharge was safe………………………………… https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/22/fukushima-wastewater-from-ruined-nuclear-plant-to-be-released-from-thursday-japan-says

August 23, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Much hype, enthusiasm, tax-payers’ largesse, for Britain’s “new nuclear”. (What could possibly go wrong?)

There would be up to £20 billion in subsidies, if needed, to get between five and eight SMRs up and running by early next decade, and about £160 million in grants to keep R&D ticking over into AMRs and nuclear fuels.

Britain fires starter’s gun on race to nuclear

In the second instalment of the Nuclear Option series, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s government is suddenly ready to shower billions of pounds on getting modular nuclear reactors up and running by the early 2030s.

Australian Financial Review Hans van Leeuwen, Europe correspondentAug 22, 2023 – London

The British government is ready to trowel more than £20 billion ($38 billion) of taxpayers’ money into turbocharging the country’s nuclear industry, as the daunting task of decarbonising the UK’s energy sector looms ever larger.

With offshore wind and solar unlikely to ensure Britain has uninterrupted baseload power, the official goal is to get 24 gigawatts of nuclear energy onstream by 2050 – up to a quarter of British power demand, up from 15 per cent now.

But hefty new gigawatt-scale nuclear power stations are struggling to get off the ground, so the government’s hopes are increasingly pinned on an early lift-off for small modular reactors (SMRs)

…………… …. Tom Greatrex, chief executive of Britain’s Nuclear Industry Association. says that although successive Downing Street administrations have all understood Britain’s flagging nuclear industry needs fresh legs, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s government is now gripped with urgency. And it has clocked the key catalysing role of taxpayers and public policy.

“The lesson from anywhere in the world where nuclear power has been deployed is that unless the state is actively involved in encouraging it to happen, it doesn’t happen,” Greatrex says.

“It is public policy that has driven it, basically because the infrastructure is so big and capital-intensive.”

The government recently unfurled a £170 million investment into hurrying up work on the embryonic but enormous Sizewell C, a 3.2-gigawatt nuclear reactor to be built by the mid-2030s. This came on top of £700 million in earlier subsidies.

But the real action must of necessity be elsewhere. Construction of the next big new nuclear reactor, the 3.2-gigawatt Hinkley Point C plant in Somerset, has been subject to seemingly endless delays and cost blowouts. And of the five creaky old mega-reactors now operating, all but one will be shut in the next five years.

So, the focus is squarely on SMRs, which in theory can be rolled out more cheaply and snappily; and also on advanced modular reactors (AMRs), which use exotic new tech or methods that are still either largely on the drawing board or even just a glint in some scientist’s eye.

A week before the Sizewell announcement, the government confirmed it would set up a new agency, revelling in the Tory-boilerplate name of Great British Nuclear, to gee up the industry.

There would be up to £20 billion in subsidies, if needed, to get between five and eight SMRs up and running by early next decade, and about £160 million in grants to keep R&D ticking over into AMRs and nuclear fuels.

“I look forward to seeing the world-class designs submitted from all around the world through the competitive selection process, as the UK takes its place front and centre in the global race to unleash a new generation of nuclear technology,” energy minister Andrew Bowie trumpeted.

Leaders of the pack

At the front of the SMR pack is Rolls-Royce, leading a consortium that has already received £210 million in government grants. It has beefed up its SMR workforce to about 600 people.

……………………………………………. GE Hitachi is Rolls-Royce’s main rival. Media reports say it already has a BWRX-300 under construction and regulatory review in Canada, a.nd its model is under consideration in the US. The company claims to be the only contender with a realistic shot of getting an SMR operational by 2030.

The two are very likely to feature on Great British Nuclear’s short-list, which will be compiled by the end of the year. Other contenders could include Nuscale and Westinghouse.

The lucky winners will get access to the government’s subsidy scheme, which could be worth £20 billion if that’s what it takes.

It’s unclear exactly what form this largesse will assume. It could use the “regulated asset base” model, where investors are given a guaranteed minimum return, funded by a levy on consumer energy bills.

Another model might involve “strike prices”: a guaranteed price per unit, to smooth out the risks and uncertainty involved in committing so much capital upfront.

Whatever the capital cost, it won’t be as much as required for a mega-reactor: perhaps £2 billion to get an SMR up and running, as opposed to the £20 billion-plus for Sizewell C, thanks to the SMR’s modular, factory-based construction method. The catch, of course, is that you get just 50 to 500 megawatts of energy, rather than 3.2 gigawatts.

“It’s the economics of volume versus the economics of scale,” Greatrex says.

The initial batch of SMRs will almost certainly be built on the site of decommissioned larger reactors: communities there are socialised to nuclear; there are good grid connections; and the geography favours PWRs. This could help overcome a raft of potential political, planning or permit obstacles.

Dark horses

While the SMRs bolt towards an early-2030s target, the government hopes to back other horses in slower time. The AMRs might use technologies that ultimately prove more efficient, such as MoltexFlex’s molten-salt reactor. Or they might have different applications, such as local start-up U-Battery………………………….

U-Battery ‘s key backer, Urenco, ultimately couldn’t pull in investors, and in March handed the intellectual property to the government-backed National Nuclear Laboratory.

Other AMRs have higher-profile investors: TerraPower has Bill Gates; NewCleo has Italy’s Agnelli family. Most are working across multiple markets. X-Energy, for example, is using US funding to build a pilot of its gas-cooled pebble-bed reactor in Texas, which it says would allow it to roll out quickly in Britain…………………

The government has fired the starter’s gun, and the race in Britain is on. There’s bipartisan political support and investor interest, so Greatrex’s only anxiety is that Westminster might become distracted.

“It’s about maintaining momentum and focus. When something is at the top of the agenda it gets that attention and focus,” he says. “But if that focus is lost, that drive and commitment is lost? Then things could go back to taking a very long time.”  https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/britain-fires-starter-s-gun-on-race-to-nuclear-20230726-p5dr9r

August 23, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

EDF Warns of French Nuclear Output Cuts in Weekend Heat Wave

Bloomberg, By Francois De Beaupuy, August 22, 2023

Electricite de France SA will probably have to reduce nuclear output over the coming weekend as a heat wave affecting a large part of the country warms rivers used for cooling some of its reactors.

Due to the high temperatures forecast on Rhone river, production restrictions are likely to affect production at its Tricastin power plant — where two of its four 900-megawatt reactors are already………….(Subscribers only) more https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-21/edf-warns-of-french-nuclear-output-cuts-in-weekend-heat-wave#xj4y7vzkg

August 23, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Exposure to Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation Linked to Solid Cancer Mortality

Elana Gotkine Aug 21, 2023  https://www.applevalleynewsnow.com/news/health/exposure-to-low-dose-ionizing-radiation-linked-to-solid-cancer-mortality/article_6ed70b06-3ba4-549e-828c-e2892b462550.html

  (HealthDay News) — Protracted exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation is associated with an increased risk for solid cancer mortality, according to a study published online Aug. 16 in The BMJ.

David B. Richardson, Ph.D., from the University of California in Irvine, and colleagues examined the effect of protracted low-dose exposure to ionizing radiation on the risk for cancer in a multinational cohort study involving workers in the nuclear industry in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Participants included 309,932 workers with individual monitoring data for external exposure to ionizing radiation, with follow-up of 10.7 million person-years.

The researchers identified 103,553 deaths, including 28,089 due to solid cancers. There was a 52 percent increase in the estimated rate of mortality due to solid cancer with cumulative dose per Gy, which lagged by 10 years. The estimate of association was approximately doubled on restriction of the analysis to the low cumulative dose range (0 to 100 mGy) and with restricting the analysis to workers hired in more recent years, when estimates of occupational external radiation were more accurate. The estimated magnitude of the association was modestly affected by exclusion of deaths from lung cancer and pleural cancer, indirectly indicating that the association was not substantially confounded by smoking or asbestos exposure.

“The study provides evidence in support of a linear association between protracted low-dose external exposure to ionizing radiation and solid cancer mortality,” the authors write.

Abstract/Full Text

August 23, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Oppenheimer Imperative: Normalising Atomic Terror

Resilience becomes part of the semantics of contemplated, and acceptable mass homicide. Emphasis is placed on the bounce-back factor, the ability to recover, even in the face of such weapons.

To be tactical is to be somehow bijou, cute, and contained, accepting mass murder under the guise of moderation and variation. One can be bad, but bad within limits.

Australian Independent Media, by Dr Binoy Kampmark, 20 Aug 23 https://theaimn.com/the-oppenheimer-imperative-normalising-atomic-terror/#comment-1092670

The atomic bomb created the conditions of contingent catastrophe, forever placing the world on the precipice of existential doom. But in doing so, it created a philosophy of acceptable cruelty, worthy extinction, legitimate extermination. The scenarios for such programs of existential realisation proved endless. Entire departments, schools of thought, and think tanks were dedicated to the absurdly criminal notion that atomic warfare could be tenable for the mere reason that someone (or some people) might survive. Despite the relentless march of civil society against nuclear weapons, such insidious thinking persists with a certain obstinate lunacy.

It only takes a brief sojourn into the previous literature of the nuke nutters to realise how appealing such thinking has proven to be. But it had its challenges. John Hersey proved threatening with his 1946 New Yorker spectacular “Hiroshima”, vivifying the horrors arising from the atomic bombing of the Japanese city through the eyes of a number of survivors.

In February 1947, former Secretary of War Henry Stimson shot a countering proposition in Harper’s, thereby attempting to normalise a spectacularly vicious weapon in terms of necessity and function; the use of the bombs against Japan saved lives, as any invasion would have cost “over a million casualties, to American forces alone.” The Allies, he surmised, “would be faced with the enormous task of destroying an armed force of five million men and five thousand suicide aircraft, belonging to a race which had already amply demonstrated its ability to fight literally to the death.”

Inadvertent as it was, the Stimson rationale for justifying theatrical never-to-be-repeated mass murder to prevent mass murder fell into the bloodstream of popular strategic thinking. Albert Wohlstetter’s The Delicate Balance of Terror chews over the grim details of acceptable extermination, wondering about the meaning of extinction and whether the word means what it’s meant to, notably in the context of nuclear war. 

 “Would not a general thermonuclear war mean ‘extinction; for the aggressor as well as the defender? ‘Extinction’ is a state that badly needs analysis.” Wohlstetter goes on to make a false comparison, citing 20 million Soviet deaths in non-atomic conflict during the Second World War as an example of astonishing resilience: the country, in short, recovered “extremely well from the catastrophe.”

Resilience becomes part of the semantics of contemplated, and acceptable mass homicide. Emphasis is placed on the bounce-back factor, the ability to recover, even in the face of such weapons. 

These were themes that continued to feature. The 1958 report of the National Security Council’s Net Evaluation Subcommittee pondered what might arise from a Soviet attack in 1961 involving 553 nuclear weapons with a total yield exceeding 2,000 megatons. The conclusion: 50 million Americans would perish in the conflagration, with nine million left sick or injured. The Sino-Soviet bloc would duly receive retaliatory attacks that would kill 71 million people. A month later, a further 196 million would die. In such macabre calculations, the authors of the report could still breezily conclude that “[t]he balance of strength would be on the side of the United States.”

Modern nuclear strategy, in terms of such normalised, clinical lunacy, continues to find form in the tolerance of tactical weapons and modernised arsenals. To be tactical is to be somehow bijou, cute, and contained, accepting mass murder under the guise of moderation and variation. One can be bad, but bad within limits. Such lethal wonders are described, according to a number of views assembled in The New York Times, as “much less destructive” in nature, with “variable explosive yields that could be dialed up or down depending on the military situation.”

The journal Nature prefers a grimmer assessment, suggesting the ultimate calamity of firestorms, excessive soot in the atmosphere, disruption of food production systems, the contamination of soil and water supplies, nuclear winter, and broader climatic catastrophe.

Some of these views are teasingly touched on in Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer, a three-hour cross narrative jumble boisterously expansive and noisy (the music refuses to leave you alone, bruising the senses). While the idea of harnessing an exceptional, exterminating power haunts the scientific community, the Manhattan Project is ultimately functional: developing the atom for military purposes before Hitler does. Once developed, the German side of the equation becomes irrelevant. The urgent quest for creating the atomic weapon becomes the basis for using it. Once left to politics and military strategy, such weapons are normalised, even relativised as simply other instruments in inflicting destruction. Oppenheimer leaves much room to that lunatic creed, though somehow grants the chief scientist moral absolution.

This is a tough proposition, given Oppenheimer’s membership of the Scientific Panel of the Interim Committee that would, eventually, convince President Harry Truman to use the bombs. In their June 16, 1945 recommendations, Oppenheimer, along with Enrico Fermi, Arthur H. Compton and Ernest O. Lawrence, acknowledged dissenting scientific opinions preferring “a purely technical demonstration to that of a purely military application best designed to induce surrender.” The scientific panel proved unequivocal: it could “propose no technical demonstration likely to bring an end to the war; we see no acceptable alternative to direct military use.”

In the film, those showing preference for a purely technical demonstration are given the briefest of airings. Leo Szilard’s petition arguing against a military use “at least not until the terms which will be imposed after the war on Japan were made public in detail and Japan were given an opportunity to surrender” makes a short and sharp appearance, only to vanish. As Seiji Yamada writes, that petition led a short, charmed life, first circulated in the Metallurgical Laboratory in Chicago, only to make its way to Edward Teller at Los Alamos, who then turned it over to Oppenheimer. The petition was, in turn, surrendered to the Manhattan Project’s chief overseer, General Leslie Groves, who “stamped it ‘classified’ and put it in a safe. It therefore never reached Truman.”

Nolan depicts the relativisation argument in some detail – one that justifies mass death in the name of technical prowess – during an interrogation by US circuit judge Roger Robb, appointed as special counsel during the 1954 security hearing against Oppenheimer. In the relevant scene, Robb wishes to trap the hapless scientist for his opposition to creating a weapon of even greater murderous power than the fission devices used against Japan. Why oppose the thermonuclear option, prods the special counsel, given your support for the atomic one? And why did he not oppose the remorseless firebombing raids of Tokyo, conducted by conventional weapons?

Nolan also has the vengeful Lewis Strauss, the two-term chairman of the US Atomic Energy Commission, moan that Oppenheimer is the less than saintly figure who managed to get away, ethically, with his atomic exploits while moralising about the relentless march about ever more destructive creations. In that sentiment, the Machiavellian ambition monger has a point: the genie, once out, was never going to be put back in.

August 22, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment